Common sense in the gun debate

By The Daily News

Published: Friday, January 4, 2013 at 08:34 PM.

Two fascinating stories last month did not receive as much media attention as they should.

The first was from San Antonio, Texas. Just two days after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., a man entered a movie theater in San Antonio and opened fire. Panicked moviegoers scrambled for cover or darted for the exits.

The shooting actually started at a nearby restaurant, then “carried on into the theater,” according to a Bexar County Sheriff’s Office spokesman.

At one point, the suspect fired at a marked police cruiser.

“Numerous” shots were fired, according to witnesses.

So, you might ask, why don’t I remember hearing about this story? Why were only two people wounded?

The answer is off-duty Bexar County Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who happened to be at the movie theater and happened to be carrying her gun.

She cornered the suspect, shot him (but not fatally) and handcuffed him.

The obvious question is: How many lives did Sgt. Castellano save? Can anybody else offer a plausible scenario where lives would have been saved that did not involve someone there with a gun to stop the suspect?

The second story is from New York. You may have read about a White Plains, N.Y., newspaper that posted a map on its website, listing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two counties in their circulation area.

The information is public record; but guns rights and privacy advocates have blasted the newspaper for publishing the information and have, tragically, resorted to threats of violence as part of their disagreement.

What is interesting, however, is the newspaper’s response to these threats. While the clear aim of the series is that guns are inherently dangerous and the public needs to know in which homes they are located, the newspaper’s response to alleged threats was to hire armed guards for its building. Apparently, what’s good for the goose.…

Both of these stories illustrate an evident truth — in a culture such as the one in America where guns are common, the best way to be safe is to be able to defend oneself with the same firearm that the criminals or deranged are bringing to the table.

This is not what we want, of course. We want to live in a society with less violence. We also want to live in society with fewer car wrecks; but rather than try to limit the number of vehicles on the road, we take other steps, such as buying a car with more safety features or adjusting our driving habits and so on.

There is no way around this fact: If we could rewind the clock, the one thing that could be changed that would have given the students in Columbine or Sandy Hook the best chance of survival is for another responsible person on those campuses to have a gun.

To argue this statement isn’t true is to allow one’s feelings or narrative of the gun debate story to trump common sense.

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published
without permission. Links are encouraged.

Two fascinating stories last month did not receive as much media attention as they should.

The first was from San Antonio, Texas. Just two days after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., a man entered a movie theater in San Antonio and opened fire. Panicked moviegoers scrambled for cover or darted for the exits.

The shooting actually started at a nearby restaurant, then “carried on into the theater,” according to a Bexar County Sheriff’s Office spokesman.

At one point, the suspect fired at a marked police cruiser.

“Numerous” shots were fired, according to witnesses.

So, you might ask, why don’t I remember hearing about this story? Why were only two people wounded?

The answer is off-duty Bexar County Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who happened to be at the movie theater and happened to be carrying her gun.

She cornered the suspect, shot him (but not fatally) and handcuffed him.

The obvious question is: How many lives did Sgt. Castellano save? Can anybody else offer a plausible scenario where lives would have been saved that did not involve someone there with a gun to stop the suspect?

The second story is from New York. You may have read about a White Plains, N.Y., newspaper that posted a map on its website, listing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two counties in their circulation area.

The information is public record; but guns rights and privacy advocates have blasted the newspaper for publishing the information and have, tragically, resorted to threats of violence as part of their disagreement.

What is interesting, however, is the newspaper’s response to these threats. While the clear aim of the series is that guns are inherently dangerous and the public needs to know in which homes they are located, the newspaper’s response to alleged threats was to hire armed guards for its building. Apparently, what’s good for the goose.…

Both of these stories illustrate an evident truth — in a culture such as the one in America where guns are common, the best way to be safe is to be able to defend oneself with the same firearm that the criminals or deranged are bringing to the table.

This is not what we want, of course. We want to live in a society with less violence. We also want to live in society with fewer car wrecks; but rather than try to limit the number of vehicles on the road, we take other steps, such as buying a car with more safety features or adjusting our driving habits and so on.

There is no way around this fact: If we could rewind the clock, the one thing that could be changed that would have given the students in Columbine or Sandy Hook the best chance of survival is for another responsible person on those campuses to have a gun.

To argue this statement isn’t true is to allow one’s feelings or narrative of the gun debate story to trump common sense.